Any team with at least two people on it who played a regular, collegiate, academic quizbowl tournament prior to September 1, 2016 is required to submit a half-packet, unless it is a high school team attending a high school-only mirror. If you have any questions about your team's submission status, please email us at fall17acf@gmail.com.

The submission schedule is:
September 9: -$30
September 23: -$15 (-$30 if optional)
October 7: no penalty (-$15 if optional)
October 14: +$25
October 21: +$50

The set:
The set will be edited by Bruce Lou, Evan Lynch, Ashwin Ramaswami, Ryan Rosenberg, and Jennie Yang. They will be overseen by an extremely qualified set editor in Jonathan Magin, with further guidance provided by other ACF members.

Thanks for your patience, and we're looking forward to a great tournament weekend!

Last edited by armitage on Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:24 pm, edited 26 times in total.

Will this tournament's distribution mirror that of previous iterations of ACF Fall or that of this year's ACF Regionals (particularly regarding the distribution of literature by genre rather than geography)?

Eric Wolfsberg
Bethlehem Central High School 2016
University of Delaware 2020
Writer, NAQT

Tornrak wrote:Will this tournament's distribution mirror that of previous iterations of ACF Fall or that of this year's ACF Regionals (particularly regarding the distribution of literature by genre rather than geography)?

Here are some difficulty guidelines to help you write your ACF Fall half-packets:

* Try to keep tossup answers accessible to new teams. If you want the Fall editors to use your questions, err on the side of easier answers that many players can get by the end.

* Late clues and giveaways in tossups and easy/middle parts of bonuses should come from high school subject matter. Early clues in tossups and hard bonus parts are good places to ask about college material, examine fundamental parts of subjects that aren't covered much in high school, or probe deeper into famous topics.

* If you're choosing between a playable question and a creative one, go for playability. Creative questions are terrific, but for ACF Fall, playability is more important. We encourage you to use creative and interesting clues to ask about straightforward, famous answers.

* Try to keep tossups no more than 6 lines and bonus parts no more than 2 lines in 10 point Times New Roman font using 1 inch margins and US Letter size paper.

I just put a link to the registration form in the original post. Please fill out this form if you wish to play ACF Fall 2017 - even if your team has already received a half-packet distribution from me directly.

Also, please get in touch with me if you are a club looking to host in one of the regions that still doesn't have a site. Thanks!

There are several teams signed up for a Northeast site, but no club has contacted me about hosting in that region. If you are part of a club in the Northeast Corridor, please consider hosting. Otherwise, you will have to travel to either Boston or College Park.

Invoices have started going out over the last couple of days. If you have any concerns with what you see on there, send me an email: gautam.acf@gmail.com

Please note:

1. If you are packet required and have yet to submit a packet, then it's not your final amount. I will update the invoice with your packet fee as appropriate.
2. If you have already submitted a packet, but have not registered, then please do. That your hosts can determine demand more easily, and we can keep a track of payments.

jfuchs wrote:Were packets already sent out to hosts? We (MIT) haven't received anything yet. Our TD is getting worried and his emails to the editors have gone unanswered.

Hey, I apologize for not responding immediately. You sent me exactly one email about an hour before this post, though, so I want to point out that this post seems a little over the top. Packets will be out soon.

jfuchs wrote:Were packets already sent out to hosts? We (MIT) haven't received anything yet. Our TD is getting worried and his emails to the editors have gone unanswered.

Hey, I apologize for not responding immediately. You sent me exactly one email about an hour before this post, though, so I want to point out that this post seems a little over the top. Packets will be out soon.

Oh, sorry! I'd been given the impression that there were more emails over a longer period of time.

Then, two months after ACF Fall, at least one host hasn't received payment, so they post on the forums. A month later, they post again, because they apparently haven't heard anything, even privately, at all! And they're not alone. Now, it's four months after the tournament, and teams are finally getting paid for the tournament they hosted! Indeed, thanks, ACF, for not defrauding the schools who make your existence possible! You did the bare minimum! Yay!

ACF needs to either reform their payment system so this doesn't have to happen, or get their shit together when it comes to getting hosts paid -- and given that this has now happened multiple times, they need to announce those changes, and how they plan on implementing them, publicly. Quite frankly, I have so little trust in ACF's (or, really, Gautam's) ability to get us paid that I don't plan on hosting any ACF tournaments at Michigan until such changes are made and are effective. If this keeps happening, nobody will host ACF's tournaments.

I cannot announce anything because nothing is decided (and I'm not our communications person anyway), but ACF is aware that this is a serious problem and internal discussions are taking place. Many of our more active members are currently busy with Nationals, but we will have a plan in place and announced well before it's time to seek hosts for next season's tournaments.

As the head editor of Nationals (and thus ACF's constitutional leader for the year), I want to talk about this issue a bit more in depth. There's no denying that we've had issues paying hosts in a timely manner under the current payment system. Some of that is because of late payments from teams, which is an unfortunate inevitability when dealing with university budget offices and college students who aren't always on top of things. Our own organizational flaws, such as putting the large job of securing payments from teams and sending them to hosts on the back of one person, have been a major contributing factor as well.

Our treasurers under the current system, Jerry and Gautam, have both done more to ensure the continued operation of ACF than essentially anyone. From speaking to Gautam, I know that he's fronted his own money to ensure that people have gotten paid despite late payments from teams. Without meaning to imply that our treasurer has always done a flawless job, I don't think we can attribute the flaws of ACF's payment system to our treasurer, when we have done a very poor job of putting the treasurer in a position to succeed. This is an organizational problem that can't and shouldn't be pinned on one individual.

ACF is a unique organization in the college quizbowl ecosystem, because ACF is an organization made up of current and former college quizbowlers producing tournaments in response to the community's needs. The major advantage of this organizational structure is that ACF Fall, Regionals, and Nationals are high-quality, low-cost tournaments produced to community standards, serving the important functions of providing low, regular, and high difficulty tournaments throughout the year, engaging new writers through packet submissions and bringing the very best into the world of editing, qualifying teams for Nationals, and deciding a national championship on circuit-style questions.

There are downsides to the ACF model as well. Our organizational continuity is not consistent. Our support and logistical personnel aren't well compensated or well supported organizationally. We depend on people with full-time jobs and other quizbowl commitments to carry out our crucial functions without much supervision, simply because we can't afford to have supervisors in place. We can and should make improvements to improve these conditions, but reform largely depends on heroic individual efforts, and quite frankly, most of the people who give their effort to ACF don't have time to be heroic. Even the process of figuring out possible reforms takes time and effort that our members rarely have.

I think Conor's post represents a wrongheaded way for teams to view ACF, and I mean that in this way. ACF is not a business, and hosts and teams are not ACF's customers. ACF is an outgrowth of the circuit. It's a group of people, mostly graduates facing the real-world pressure of paying the bills, giving their time at well below market rates to ensure that the college quizbowl calendar has shape and substance. Because of that, I reject the idea that hosts "make [ACF's] existence possible" as woefully incomplete; it completely ignores that ACF, through the sacrifices of its members, makes the existence of the college quizbowl calendar possible.

I'll reiterate that ACF's current payment system is flawed, and that hosts have a right to be frustrated. But with that frustration should come the recognition that we're all a part of the circuit and the community, and with that comes some sacrifices. We will never stiff someone who's owed payment, and we'll try our best to make the system work better for everyone, but hosts might have to wait on payment longer than they'd like (whether it's for teams to pay or for the treasurer to have time to dig out from under a pile of invoices). I hope that teams in the position to host ACF tournaments take into consideration more than just how many months it will take for the check to arrive, because hosting is, at the end of the day, the responsibility of the best-organized teams to the rest of the circuit.

To conclude, let me talk about the major challenge that ACF faces as we move into the next few competition years. Most of our core editors and administrative personnel have graduated. I've seen enough new and talented editors to be reasonably confident that tournaments will continue to be produced up to standards, but the aging out of people on the administrative side is a major problem. To be clear, these are not glamorous positions, and unfortunately, the only real potential to be recognized in them is when you make someone mad. But without new people willing to serve in positions such as website administrator, treasurer, or meeting chair, ACF will suffer. At the end of the day, it's not sustainable or fair for current players to depend on the sacrifices of graduates to keep the game afloat, so I call on current players to make their impact on ACF.

This conversation that Andrew alludes to in his last paragraph probably deserves a different thread. One thing that could help is in making some of these offices open to people who are not interested in the question-producing aspects of ACF (I believe they are, to be clear, but this has never been made clear to me).